Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why Matthew is "introduced" late... | Luke 1:3 | jnick510 | 116320 | ||
In the Book of Matthew, Matthew is not introduced as a disciple until chapter 9:9. I know the Bible is not written chrnologically, but how does Matthew know about the previous 9 chapters he has written about, without being a disciple of Christ? I am not arguing that he doesn't know, or anything like that, just wondering why his discipleship is introduced so late. | ||||||
2 | Why Matthew is "introduced" late... | Luke 1:3 | Rowdy | 116321 | ||
The following is cited for reference: Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. We have to remember that these men, writers of the NT were human, inspired yes by the Holy Spirit. But I have no problem believing that they would each "interview" the different apostles and disciples and get as full accounting of the facts as they possibly could. I think the Holy Spirit helped them realize when someone was adding/fabricating or misrepresenting themselves. Some small bits of history they may have even discarded in accordance with the guidance from the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Especially about this passage in Luke? God bless. |
||||||
3 | Why Matthew is "introduced" late... | Luke 1:3 | Ray | 116330 | ||
Hi Rowdy, You ask what he thinks about the passage in Luke. I think that the key to the passage is verse 2 and whether we understand the "word" to be the "Word" or not. Personally, I do not understand an eyewitness to be one who is aware of the written or spoken word. The eyewitness is one who has seen the Person, the Word. See John 1:1 and Acts 18:26. We want to know the exact truth (Luke 1:4) explained more accurately (Acts 18:26). 1) Luke 1:2 also applies to the question of jnick510, in that we can go with the literal translation of the verse which suggests that whether they were eyewitnesses from the beginning or whether they "became" eyewitness later, they were all eyewitnesses of the Word. Luke 1:2, "just as those who from the beginning were [Lit. became] eyewitnesses and servants of the *Word have handed them down to us,..." From the heart, Ray |
||||||
4 | Why Matthew is "introduced" late... | Luke 1:3 | Rowdy | 116332 | ||
Thanks, you make a good point. I do think we can be assured we do in fact definitely have the whole Word of God. We may not be certain as to the details of how It got here but I'm convinced God has sanctified and protected His Word over the centuries. God bless. |
||||||
5 | Why Matthew is "introduced" late... | Luke 1:3 | Ray | 116334 | ||
Hi Rowdy, I appreciate and agree with all that you say here. Upon examination, to my mind I would only change the capitalization of the Word. I honor the Scriptures and would capitalize the word "Word" if it did not confuse who or what we speak. That is why I speak of the word of God, the Scriptures. You spoke of His Word being protected. God Himself does not need protection but the Scriptures do indeed need to be upheld and protected. We definitely do have the whole *word of God. I say all that in the spirit that Luke was expressing; in the desire for exactness and accuracy. Don't feel that I am finding fault here, and I do not expect everyone to talk about the word of God. But we have to be aware of the difference between the word of God and the Word. From the heart, Ray |
||||||
6 | Please clarify: Word vs. word | Luke 1:3 | Rowdy | 116337 | ||
I'm not really clear on this topic of the word vs. the Word. Could you define each one for me? Thanks and God bless. | ||||||
7 | Please clarify: Word vs. word | Luke 1:3 | Ray | 116364 | ||
Hi Rowdy, I have said that we need to distinguish between the word of God and the Word. The Bible, the Scriptures, are often referred to as The Word. However, we know that John tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Bible is not flesh, it is papyrus or paper. The Word, Jesus (who is God), became flesh. So there is the confusion of the Word, the Bible, and the Word, that is, Jesus. For me, there is less confusion when we speak of the word of God, for then we know that we are speaking about the Bible. When we speak of the Word of God, we should know that we are speaking of Jesus, for that is His name. Revelation 19:13, "And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God." From the heart, Ray |
||||||
8 | Please clarify: Word vs. word | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 116365 | ||
Amen, Ray! | ||||||